Man gets Rs 10.81 lakh relief after car not delivered for 12 years despite full payment

The Puducherry State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has held Mahindra and Mahindra and the dealership liable for deficiency in service and ordered them to pay Rs 10.81 lakh for allegedly not delivering a car to a man for about 12 years despite taking the payment for it.

A bench comprising S Sundaravadivelu (presiding member) and S Oumasanguery (member) was hearing a complaint filed by a man who had paid the amount to the dealers for buying a car, but despite promises, the car was not delivered to him.

“Usually, when people decide to purchase a car, they make the choice primarily considering the manufacturer, model, variants, etc. They know very well who the manufacturer is and also that the dealer acts only as a bridge between the buyer and the manufacturer. They find out who the dealer in their area is who sells the car and deposit the required amount for the purchase of the car. The dealer acts as the face of the manufacturer, as people can not purchase the car directly from the manufacturer,” the June 24 order read.

Car not delivered

The man went to the dealer to purchase a new model car XUV500 W6, and he paid an advance of Rs 40,000 for the same. As claimed, the rest of the amount was paid by him by taking a loan of Rs 8.96 lakhs from his bank. The amount was sent to the account of the dealers on October 28, 2013, on the promise that the car would be delivered after a week because it was not available in the godown.

According to the man, when he visited the dealership after a week, he was informed that it would take one more month to deliver the vehicle because of a delay on the part of the company. The man further said  that the dealers always gave vague and irresponsible replies.

The man claimed that since May 22, 2014 to the present day, the dealers and the company had not taken any steps to deliver the vehicle and because of dishonest behaviour of the dealers and the company, he got depressed, felt cheated and was not able to concentrate on his work properly.

It was also urged by the man that the agents of his bank were threatening him that they would file civil and criminal action against him and that he had to pay more interest and penalty to his bank, because of dishonest conduct of both the dealer and company. The man also stated that he was not able to take a simple loan for his personal purpose, due to the non-payment of EMI amount of the previous loan.

Story continues below this ad

The man then approached the district commission where his complaint was allowed only against the dealer and the dealer was ordered to pay Rs 9.31 lakhs to the man. The amount included cost of the car, compensation and litigation costs. It was against this order that the man came to the state consumer commission.

12 years

The commission held that the company was responsible for non delivery of the vehicle to the man and therefore liable to refund the amount due to him. It was further observed that the vehicle was not delivered even after 12 years, the same would have caused mental agony, hardship to the man apart from wastage of time, energy and money, hence the man must be compensated for the same.

It was also noted by the commission that despite the fact that full consideration for the car had been paid by the man on October 28, 2013, the purchase order had been placed by the dealer only on June 16, 2014. Therefore, the dealer was also held liable for compensating the man.

Accordingly, the company was ordered to pay Rs 8.71 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of complaint till the day of payment of the amount. The dealers were directed to pay Rs 1.5 lakhs to the man towards compensation for the deficiency in service, mental agony, and physical hardships suffered by him.

Story continues below this ad

The company was further directed to pay Rs 50,000 to the man for the deficiency in service, mental agony, physical hardships and other sufferings and the dealers were asked to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses.

‘No deficiency in service’

Advocate N. Baptiste Augustin, appearing for the dealers, submitted that even after receiving the amount for the car the company failed to dispatch the vehicle to the dealers without any valid reason whatsoever and that the dealership of the dealers was terminated without any notice.

Further it was urged that the dealers gave a demo vehicle to the man for Rs 9 lakhs on September 5, 2013 so that he could carry out his regular business activities without any problems and the man had also received a sum of Rs 50,000 from the dealer on January 28, 2015 and returned the vehicle only on April 22, 2015.

Advocate P Rajesh representing the company argued that the man had not established any deficiency of service or a manufacturing defect as against the company and  the company, being the manufacturer of vehicles, did not deal with the end to end customers and it was not the claim of the man that the money he had paid to purchase the car, had been transferred to the company.

Story continues below this ad

Takeaway

The ruling establishes the obligation of companies to ensure proper services and compliance with warranties, and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Puducherry: 1800-425-1082) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.